This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Roland Orre <email@example.com> writes: > I think it is time to consider a redefinition of "defined?" to > make it a special form. Me too. I was against changing `defined?' into a procedure from the very start. (Although I might have been a bit too lazy in my protests.) I'd like to add the following argument: * If `defined?' is a special form, it is easier for a compiler or a macro expander to expand conditionals testing for existence of a binding at compilation/macro expansion time. `defined?' could, in this respect, be used for conditional compilation. *** I suggest that we rename the current `defined?' into `bound?' and re-introduce scm's special form `defined?'. In fact, I think this is such a good suggestion that I will do this within a week from now, unless someone stops me.